Error-tolerant image computer terminal

ABSTRACT

Today, increased efforts are made to provide users with people-machine data-processing interfaces which are as simple and comfortable as possible. Inputting is currently carried out in data-processing systems via host terminals and personal computers as well as via other peripherals, such as network computers. However, the real evolutionary leap has been the achievement of input by means of writing and speech recognition. Handwriting in particular is a form of expression with which people are familiar from childhood onwards and which, unlike speech, also produces documented proof of expression. However, handwriting suffers from two problems: first, when there are a number of different users, as is often the case with public information access of self-service apparatus, OCR-translation of handwriting is not based on the individual script, as is necessary for a high-quality OCR process and, second, a relatively complicated correction of a defective input is demanded of the user, which, as experience has shown, clearly decreases the acceptability of a system. The invention offers a defect-tolerant image terminal as a solution to these two problems. The user-individual script forms the basis of the OCR translation process in that, during use, the script is either also input via a magnetic card or chip card or is called up in the system—this can also be achieved by means of an identification which is printed on paper or OCR-translated at the outset. It is not essential for the user to make corrections, he merely has to check the correctness of the OCR translation. Hand-written entries which have not been correctly transformed can then either be corrected by the user and re-processed or the correction can be made at the destination by sending a message, via the corresponding control key, that correction is necessary.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The invention comprises a terminal which in the manner of the faxapparatuses which are conventional nowadays, reads in items of imageinformation, effects conversion into codes by way of an OCR-unit,displays the result of that conversion immediately to the user of theterminal and thereby permits him upon detecting incorrect conversion ofhis items of text information into codes either to repeat the inputoperation or however also to send an input which is not correct to thetarget address in such a way that he informs the receiver about thedefectiveness of the conversion in order to permit manualpost-processing.

Unlike the input of commands or items of information on computerinstallations by making use of an alphanumeric keyboard and a displayscreen, which is still the predominant procedure nowadays, such inputscan also be implemented by way of written, more specifically manuscriptentries, on paper. The software for effecting the process for convertingwriting into codes is summed up by the term OCR (optical characterrecognition). It identifies a well-documented discipline which includesprocesses and procedures, methods (feature recognition, patternrecognition), error-tolerant interpolation processes (fuzzy logic) andtechnical aspects of data compression, optimisation of implementationtimes etc.

The technology of OCR however encounters natural limits which excludecompletely error-free results; on the one hand human handwriting hasscript images which are individual to a person and on the other hand itis not always unchanged even in relation to the same person, atdifferent times.

This represents a serious obstacle in regard to the use of manuscript orhandwriting as an input instrument; even very low error rates which willnever be entirely eliminated hitherto made it impossible to put suchterminals to practical use. Otherwise in many cases, in particular inthe area relating to simple everyday uses as occur for example in theself-service sector in banks, such terminals would already long ago havemade greater inroads into use of the equipment of keyboard and displayscreen. The psychological advantage of handwriting input is also thatthe input medium, that is to say the form, remains in the hands of theuser in its original as a physical evidence and documentation of thatwhich was communicated to the input unit as a command.

In order to illustrate the hitherto state of the art, insofar as it isto be deemed useful for comprehension of the present invention, a briefoutline of the development of input peripheral units will be set forth.The Seventies were in the sign of the large computers to which inputs orcommands were communicated by way of ‘unintelligent’ terminals. In theEighties the Personal Computer began its triumphal march, a piece ofequipment of high decentral intelligence, which was also very quicklyused as a decentral peripheral unit and extensively displaced the otherterminals.

It is precisely in regard to that function however which increasinglygained in significance that the weaknesses and problems of the PCmanifested themselves. The PC is basically both too complicated and alsotoo expensive just for communicating simple inputs and commands tocentral computers (hosts and servers). In that respect, not onlyequipment supply costs but more also maintenance costs and also thelevel of obsolescence which is high due to fast system and productcycles play their part. As from about the year 1995 such realisationsled to the development of ‘lean clients’. The expectation is that theywill win through, for cost reasons, particularly in relation to simpleuses. More specifically, users are either not always in a position ornot always prepared to satisfy high demands in terms of operatingknow-how. In regard to everyday processes in the self-service sector andalso information access procedures, for example over the Internet, inthe long term simple processes involving easy comprehensibility, simplehandling and rapid implementation will win through. Even users who areaccustomed to more complicated operating procedures, for example on aPC, will prefer the simpler technology if the straightforward use of theapplication is the foreground consideration and not the play componentof operation which is also inherent in the PC, if therefore there is arealistic weighing-up of cost and use.

The experiences and realizations of recent years have resulted in twoevolutionary developments. First, the symbol-oriented graphic userinterface together with an expansion of the keyboard, by virtue of mouseoperation, has made computer technology easier and more user friendly.Second, the development of personal computers (PC's) that provide asimpler and less expensive alternative to ever increasing high-capacitycentralized computers, has allowed computer technology to promulgate.

These experiences and realisations resulted in recent years in twoevolutionary developments. On the one hand, the symbol-oriented graphicuser interface together with an expansion of the keyboard by virtue ofmouse operation, in the meantime the virtually monopoly domain ofMicrosoft. Secondly, the development of so-called ‘lean clients’ as asimpler and in particular less expensive alternative to everincreasingly high-capacity decentral computers, that is to say PCs.

Today, in the strategically crucial area of information technology, theman-machine interface, we are faced with revolutionary developments,more specifically communication of man with machine by way of speech andalso by way of handwriting. On a world-wide basis, great endeavours arebeing undertaken to achieve advances in this area—nonetheless aninterface design which is as user-close as possible will afford aquantum leap in many application areas.

Speech and handwriting input can be viewed as equivalent processes, evenif each has its own different advantages and disadvantages and thereforeapplication areas which are rather complementary. In regard topreferences for the two methods, there is a marked difference: while inEuropean and American research and development, the talk is exclusivelyof ‘speech input’, the Japanese electrical and electronic industry istargeted predominantly on ‘writing input technology’. That reflectscultural differences. While in the West a high level of affinity forabstract thought prevails, which devotes itself to virtual space,Japanese thinking is more concrete and practice-oriented and more remotefrom theory. A significant economic consequence thereof was the factthat the fax apparatus was developed in Europe but taken up in Japan andfrom there was made into a world-wide market success.

Virtually all known patents in the field of writing processing areJapanese, more specifically for many years now, from the introduction ofthe fax apparatus. It may be that this Japanese dominance, this advancein development, was also a reason why Western research fell back intothe area of speech and ‘writing recognition’ is not a theme that isinvolved there. The converse is not the case. There is greatly advancedJapanese research and development in the field of ‘speech recognition’,and for that reason it must also be reckoned that this technology willfirst be applied in Japan; from the point of view of its structure andits auditory aspects the Japanese language is many times easier todetect by machine than Western languages.

The most recent trend in development towards ‘lean clients’ incombination with handwriting process has directed Japanese research anddevelopment to a technology and equipment which would open up attractivepossible uses; the known fax unit, unused in its potential function as a‘lean’ input peripheral unit, transports writing and thus potentialcontrol commands or items of input information. In that case the writingor text can be converted into codes either at the transmission locationor at the target location, by means of OCR. If the conversion operationis moved into the target system, it would be possible for all presentdayfax apparatuses to perform world-wide the function of terminals and thusplay a part beside PCs or new but nonetheless conventional peripheralunits such as network computers.

The largest Japanese electrical group, Hitachi, has long beenexperimenting with mainframes which are intended to process writing ortext input of normal fax apparatuses and which would thus make each faxapparatus into an ‘answer-back fax apparatus’. An obstacle in terms ofexploitation of licences however is thought to have been the experiencethat the defectiveness of OCR-conversion stands in the way of properoperational fitness. Prototypes produced by Western manufacturers, withthe option of correcting residual errors by way of a keyboard and adisplay screen on the other hand suffer from the point that this againinvolves a relapse to a lower level of input peripheral equipment andthus a limited degree of user acceptance.

A further process from Matsushita integrates a correction keyboard forOCR-conversion into a fax apparatus, but basically this does notrepresent a substantial advance over pure keyboard (and display screen)input.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The development according to the invention of the present system lies ina combination of a—apparently—difficult prerequisite for a qualitativelysatisfactory OCR-process on the one hand and an organisationalinnovation on the other hand which is made possible by virtue of atechnical arrangement. Both are described hereinafter.

Anyone who uses OCR-software knows that results which are satisfactoryto a certain extent can only be achieved when the individual handwritingpattern of the user forms the basis for the OCR-process. The userfirstly has to initialise the software by training it for his individualwriting image or script. In the area of speech recognition, thatconsideration is the primary content of research: acoustic training ofthe system with the individual manner of speaking of the user is ofgreatest importance for successful use.

In regard to writing processing also therefore the individualhandwriting pattern must be communicated to the system. In generaltherefore it will be necessary for each user to fill in by hand apattern form in order to use that pattern, which is individual to therespective person, for the OCR-program in the situation of use. In manyareas of use however it will be possible to derive that handwritingpattern from a large number of writing uses of a user and store same forthat person, for example in connection with bank remittances andtransactions.

The operation of calling up the customer-specific writing image in thesituation of use can be effected by way of a magnetic or chip card,whether the writing pattern itself is stored thereon or the writingpattern is called up with an identification number from the memory ofthe system hardware. The latter can also be effected by way of theaccount number which is printed on the form and which is first subjectedto OCR-translation. This second alternative also represents the singleoption for improving quality, which is available for the Hitachi system.

The further technical-organisational innovation of the process thesubject-matter of the present invention provides that no obligatorycorrection of a possibly defective input is required from the user. Asecond working step, namely correction of the input, in whatever formthat may be, can be omitted, whereby the level of acceptance can becertainly substantially increased. The user is only required to checkthe printout of the OCR-translation of his manuscript form. In thepositive case, he will press the key ‘OK—execute’; if in contrast henotes a defective translation on the printed-out document, he will pressthe other key ‘error—execute after manual correction by systemoperator’. In that case, confirmation is printed out that the inputdeclared to be defective will also be subjected to post-processing inthe system. This second step in the invention could admittedly also beeffected without the first step of calling up the customer-individualwriting pattern, but there is then the fear that this will involve a hitrate which is unsatisfactory both for the customer and also for thesystem operator.

Further processing of erroneous or defective inputs which are notcorrected by the user is then implemented in a similar manner topresentday processing by virtue of manual input or subsequentprocedures, but here this is supported by the preliminary work which hasalready been done by the system: the human dealing with the processingoperation already has available the translation which in fact ispredominantly correct, and it will be possible to quickly discover andcorrect the error by comparison with the original.

In this process therefore achieving freedom from error which is requiredfor the processing procedure is not necessarily a matter for the user.This is important in terms of acceptance everywhere that there is nomotive for particular care or attention on the part of the user. In whatfields and in relation to which situations of use it will be possiblealso to require a user to deal with correction, besides a pure checkingprocedure which the user will still willingly undertake, and whether andhow that correction process is to be stimulated (for example bydifferences in terms of the charges involved), is a question ofsupplier-customer relationships, the situation in terms of competition,and marketing.

One particular embodiment of the invention is directed to a faxapparatus for transmitting and receiving documents. The documents inquestion are at least partially handwritten. The fax apparatus includesat least the following equipment: a scanning unit for scanning imageinformation disclosed on the document that is to be transmitted, an(optical character recognition) OCR unit for converting the scannedimage information into codes, a transmitting unit for transmitting thecodes which are converted by the OCR-unit, a receiving unit forreceiving transmitted documents, and a printing unit for printing outthe documents.

There is also included a writing image input and storage unit for theinput of user-individual writing images and for storage of theuser-individual writing images in suitable form. An individual'scharacteristic handwriting symbols or images are input and stored asuser-individual writing images. There is provided a call-up unit foruser-individual call-up of a user-individual writing image in thewriting image input and storage unit. Once input and stored, anindividual's handwriting symbols are accessible from the storage unit.

What is claimed is:
 1. A fax apparatus for transmitting and receivingdocuments which in particular have at least in part handwrittencomponents, including a scanning unit for scanning the image informationof such a document to be transmitted, an OCR-unit for converting thescanned image information into codes, a transmitting unit fortransmitting the codes which are converted by the OCR-unit, a receivingunit for receiving transmitted documents, and a printing unit forprinting out documents, wherein there is provided a user-individualhandwriting-pattern input and storage unit for the input of auser-individual handwriting-pattern and for storage of theuser-individual handwriting-pattern in suitable form, that there isprovided an optional call-up unit for user-individual call-up of auser-individual handwriting-pattern out of the user-individualhandwriting-pattern input and storage unit communicating theuser-individual handwriting-patten to the OCR-unit, that there isfurther provided an intermediate storage means which stores theconverted codes which are converted by the OCR-unit on the basis of theuser-individual handwriting-pattern from the scanned image informationand, that there is a data transmission connection between the OCR-unitand the printing unit so that the converted codes from the imageinformation converted back into image information again by the OCR-unit,immediately after they have been produced and converted back, can beprinted out by means of the printing unit, and that there is provided anerasing unit for erasing (not for correcting) the converted codes storedin the intermediate storage means and, a confirmation unit with whichthe codes stored in the intermediate storage means can be called up fromthe intermediate storage means for transmission by means of thetransmitting unit.
 2. The fax apparatus according to claim 1, whereinthe call-up unit is a card reading unit for reading magnetic or chipcards.
 3. The fax apparatus according to claim 2, wherein there isprovided a display device for displaying the codes which are convertedfrom the image information and converted back into items of imageinformation again by the OCR-unit, immediately after they are produced.4. The fax apparatus according to claim 1, wherein there is provided adisplay device for displaying the codes which are converted from theimage information and converted back into items of image informationagain by the OCR-unit immeadiately after they are produced.
 5. The faxapparatus according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation unit demands aconfirmation result, “OK-execute” or “error—execute after manualcorrection by system operator”, for the converted codes from the user.6. A method of transmitting documents which in particular have at leastin part user-individual handwritten components, wherein the document isscanned by means of a scanning unit and, the scanned image informationis converted into codes by means of an OCR-unit wherein the codesconverted by the OCR-unit are transmitted by means of a transmittingunit and, wherein documents transmitted are received by means of areceiving unit and printed out by means of a printing unit, whereinprior to the transmission of documents user-individualhandwriting-patterns are inputted and stored in suitable form and thatconversion of the image information scanned by the scanning unit intocodes is effected by means of the OCR-unit optionally on the basis ofthe stored user-individual handwriting-patterns and that the codesconverted by the OCR-unit are then converted into image informationagain by the OCR-unit and printed out by means of the printing unit,wherein confirmation of the converted codes is performed prior totransmission and an erasing unit is used to erase the converted codes.7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the stored user-individualhandwriting-patterns can be called up by means of magnetic or chipcards.
 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the codes which areproduced by the OCR-unit on the basis of the user-individualhandwriting-patterns and converted back into items of image informationagain are displayed by means of a display device, immediately after theyare produced.
 9. The method according to claim 6, wherein the codeswhich are produced by the OCR-unit on the basis of the user-individualhandwriting-patterns and converted back into items of image informationagain are displayed by means of a display device, immediately after theyare produced.
 10. The method according to claim 6, wherein there is ademand from a confirmation unit for a confirmation result, “OK- execute”or “error—execute after manual correction by system operator”, for theconverted codes from the user.